KGV + PoW

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:44 pm
Dunmunro wrote: "Fully worked up a KGV class was roughly equal to Tirpitz"
:lol:
Bismarck was just unsinkable by 14" (and even 16") guns at almost any range....
PoW was out of her immunity zone already when at 15.000 meters....
:lol:

I would have avoided to come back to this ppoint, but Mr.Dunmunro started the polemic: of course the above technical facts have NOTHING to do with the duty of a commanding officer that has a mission to accomplish. Crippling damages can well be inflicted by a clearly inferior ship when commanded by a brave commander (see Harwood, see Glasfurd, etc.). IMO Leach was simply not of this kind.


Bye, Alberto
PoW inflicted crippling damage and several thousand tons of flooding on the "unsinkable" Bismarck with only two hits... :think:

But now you change tack and acknowledge that Leach had to open the range as he was inside PoW's immune zone.

If we change PoW for KGV we get ~100% 14in output, radar ranging for far superior accuracy and we see Bismarck being hit at a minimum of twice the rate that PoW achieved.

The RN had lots of cruisers in 1939 so Harwood could afford to expend one to contain Graf Spee. As we've discussed and you acknowledge, the RN was critically short of fast heavily armoured battleships in May 1941 (the carrier situation was no better with Courageous and Glorious sunk and Illustrious crippled leaving the RN with only 3 fast carriers ) and you then go on to tout Tirpitz as an example of the RN's need for fast heavily armoured battleships but then dismiss Leach as a coward for not allowing Lutjens the opportunity to sink PoW thus allowing the KM to gain numerical superiority in fast battleships!
GiZi
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:48 am

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by GiZi »

Hello all,

In regards to the original question asked;

While I wouldn't want to definitively say one side would definitely win over rate other, I do think this would greatly swing the odds over towards the favor of the British.

KGV at this point is much more worked up than PoW (notably, not having yard workers still on the ship!), although still suffering from the issues related to the Quad turrets. Thus, I think it's safe to assume that KGV's combat efficiency would be minimally just as much as PoW if not better.

With that noted, turning our attention to the difference between Hood and PoW at the battle I think should highlight some very important differences between the two ships.
  • KGV had far greater armor than Hood - ignoring even the belt armor (which should be mostly irrelevant at such a range as this action), she did have far superior deck armor. Thus, Holland would not feel the need to press the range so rapidly to avoid he threat of plunging fire. He's got the advantage of fighting with a homogenous division of warships - at the same ranges they'll have the same resistance to the German 38cm guns. Thus the two KGV-class battleships could exposed their aft turrets much earlier and engaged with all twenty 14" guns between the two ships - far more than the ten barrels Holland brought to bare historically.
  • Even if hit in a similar manner, KGV should not be vulnerable to destruction in the same manner as Hood - unlike the old pre-Jutland battlecruiser, KGV's magazines stored shells above the charges, rather than the reverse. A fatal magazine detonation from a shell hit would be far less likely.
  • Hood's gunnery was far less of a threat than any other ship at the action due to her Fire Control System - she still relied on a Dreyer table that was inadequate for the type of action she ended up fighting.
To be more specific on the FCS's shortcomings, O'Hara notes in The German Fleet at War, 1939-1945;
There was a disagreement between Lütjens and Lindemann whether Bismarck should chase down and sink Prince of Wales. The fact Lütjens let the damaged ship go accorded with his instructions and is not remarkable. The results of this famous duel are commonly explained in terms of British errors rather than German skill. Stephen Roskill, the official British historian, assembled a damning collection, most of which he laid at the feet of Vice Admiral Holland.

First, he noted that the converging approach elected by Holland was an unhappy compromise that did not close range quickly but served to reduce the fighting power of the British ships to forward turrets only. Moreover, the “diagonal approach produced just the conditions of changing rate of change of range that Hood’s old and flawed Dreyer fire control computer could not cope with.”

O’Hara, Vincent P.. The German Fleet at War, 1939-1945 (pp. 83-84). Naval Institute Press.
The combinations of these factors I think would weigh heavily in the favor of the British. Hood's gunnery failed to accomplish anything in the battle (except for some minor splinter damage on Eugen via an over, iirc? Or was that PoW?) before she was destroyed. This rapidly left only PoW able to contribute large-caliber fire to the action, an ability which rapidly diminished as her quad turrets went out of action, and none due to enemy action - leaving her with only two guns to respond to the German ships.

Given that;
  • KGV's fire would be more effective than Hood
  • KGV would be less vulnerable to rapid destruction than Hood
No matter what, the Germans are faced with a longer action, under fire the whole time. Given that despite PoW's output issues (55 of 74 shots ordered actually firing) she still hit Bismarck just as many times as Bismarck hit her (3 times)... I cannot see why KGV might hit less than PoW, especially if her guns fail her less. Under significant return fire German gunnery would likely not be as good as it was historically (as rangefinding and salvo observation tends to suffer when under fire), and perhaps most noteworthy at all, Prinz Eugen is much more of a lability than before.

Although I might be wrong here, as I recall PoW pretty much fired on Bismarck the entire time while Eugen only took fire from Hood before she went down... and once Hood went down the heavy cruiser could continue the action unmolested. If the British have two 14" battleships, in the event they don't both fire on Bismarck (although I suspect this would in fact be the case), Eugen is getting the attention of 14" guns, with better FC than what Hood's 15" guns had.

I'm not willing to concretely say it's a British victory, but I do think the pendulum swings heavily in favor of the British if Hood is replaced by KGV.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "If we change PoW for KGV we get ~100% 14in output"
FALSE !
KGV quadruple turret jammed at the very first turn and she could achieve a better output efficiency ONLY because she fired very slowly (her RoF was inferior to PoW). McMullen preferred to fire quickly (loosing some shots), but her effective shells per minute were more than KGV on May 27..... :lol:


Leach was in command of the only battleship between Bismarck and the Atlantic. His duty was clear enough (disregarding strategical decisions that were NOT of his competence anyway) but this is not the right thred for this discussion.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:37 am Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "If we change PoW for KGV we get ~100% 14in output"
FALSE !
KGV quadruple turret jammed at the very first turn and she could achieve a better output efficiency ONLY because she fired very slowly (her RoF was inferior to PoW). McMullen preferred to fire quickly (loosing some shots), but her effective shells per minute were more than KGV on May 27..... :lol:


Leach was in command of the only battleship between Bismarck and the Atlantic. His duty was clear enough (disregarding strategical decisions that were NOT of his competence anyway) but this is not the right thred for this discussion.


Bye, Alberto
KGV's salvo RoF was slightly slower because of the seastate (force 8 gale) which also contributed to the turret jam at 0920 after her 4th turn. KGV's Effective Full Gun Salvos/minute was ~1.7 (for the first 9 minutes) versus 1.41 EFGs (1.895 x .7435) for PoW.

Leach was in command - NOT YOU! He was a much better judge of his duty than you and his job was to balance all the strategic and tactical factors and then make an appropriate decision. You've already stated that PoW was inside her 38cm immune zone and she was also nearing PE's torpedo range and was being engaged by 38 KM guns and could reply with only 7 effective 14In guns. Leach's immediate concern, after Hood's loss was to open the range ASAP to lessen the effectiveness of the KM 20.3 and 15cm guns, and ensure that his ship could still steam and fight. This allowed her to engage Bismarck on two further occasions and to shadow Bismarck for another day. After Y turret jammed Leach could only withdraw which allowed W-W to take over tactical command.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Dunmunro wrote: "KGV's salvo RoF was slightly slower because of the seastate"
Your own speculation. The FACT is that KGV on May 27 was UNABLE to fire as effectively as PoW on May 24, delivering less shells per minute against Bismarck. She fired slowly (and thus lost no shot). The first notable turns jammed the quadruple turret on both ships.


Dunmunro wrote: "Leach was in command - NOT YOU! He was a much better judge of his duty than you"
....and Pound (+ Churchill) were better judge than everybody. Strategical situation was NOT a matter for a Captain.

Leach (as well as Wake-Walker...) acted as timidly as Troubridge during WWI and should have been asked why he left the battlefield with a ship that was still able to inflict damages to his enemy. He was saved only by the subsequent sinking of Bismarck without further losses and by the final Tovey's opposition (+ his LIES in his point 19).



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:28 am
Dunmunro wrote: "KGV's salvo RoF was slightly slower because of the seastate"
Your speculation. The FACT is that KGV on May 27 was UNABLE to fire as effectively as PoW on May 24, delivering less shells per minute against Bismarck. She fired slowly (and thus lost no shot). The first notable turns jammed the quadruple turret on both ships.


Dunmunro wrote: "Leach was in command - NOT YOU! He was a much better judge of his duty than you"
....and Pound (+ Churchill) were better judge than everybody. Strategical situation was NOT a matter for a Captain.

Leach (as well as Wake-Walker...) acted as timidly as Trouridge during WWI and should have been asked why he left the battlefield with a ship that was still able to inflict damages to his enemy. He was saved only by the subsequent sinking of Bismarck and by the final Tovey's opposition (+ his LIES in his point 19).



Bye, Alberto
PoW EFGS/minute are stated in her GAR while KGV's GAR gives good information as to her EFGS/minute at salvo ~40 which was about 1.62 or better. I don't know why you have to resort to lying about this when you have the correct information available to you.

Pound and Churchill agreed with Leach and recommended him for commendation. If the KGV class turrets were prone to jam and did in fact jam when Leach turned to open the range, then surely he was correct to then withdraw.

Troubridge never engaged.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

...but KGV fired more slowly in average during the first (comparable) 10 minutes. We are not interested in a short interval at salvo 40 (also poW fired quickly around salvo 15) .....

Leach was correct ONLY with HINDSIGHT.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:02 am ...but KGV fired more slowly in average during the first (comparable) 10 minutes. We are not interested in a short interval at salvo 40 (also poW fired quickly around salvo 15) .....

Leach was correct ONLY with HINDSIGHT.


Bye, Alberto
PoW only fired 18 salvos and achieved an EFGS/minute of 1.41. During her first 40 salvos KGV fired at 1.7 salvos/minute and achieved ~1.62 EFGS/minute.

Leach was correct at the time and in hindsight.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

... there is NO proof of what you say about KGV except your speculations. Please stay to FACTS you can prove.

1.7 salvo/minute is the apparent RoF achieved ONLY when distance was between 16000 and 12000 yards :shock: , not the initial one and not the effective one. You are unable to calculate any effective figure because you don't have the ordered shots in NO interval at all (and again you are speculating about a loss of output incredibly low as for your 96 for Bismarck).

The 1.7 should anyway be compared to 1,9 for PoW (however, at distances between 26.000 and 15.000 yards). :kaput:

Please compare the data for the first 10 minutes (8:48-8:58) of battle (comparable distances) if you want to try to be credible.

KGV fired more slowly than PoW and had the same main problems.


Re. Leach decision this is a matter of opinions and we will never be in agreement.



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by pgollin »

.

IF we "stay with facts" then your post how the RN ;

" the Royal Navy issued a document with the list of the battleships that never were going to engage the Tirpitz, … basically all of them ( R class, QE's , Nelson/Rodney, Repulse and Renown ) "

Is completely wrong re. Nelson and Rodney, and substantially wrong re the modified QEs and Renown.

Your relationship with facts is highly suspect.

.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:53 am ... there is NO proof of what you say about KGV except your speculations. Please stay to FACTS you can prove.

1.7 salvo/minute is the apparent RoF achieved ONLY when distance was between 16000 and 12000 yards :shock: , not the initial one and not the effective one. You are unable to calculate any effective figure because you don't have the ordered shots in NO interval at all (and again you are speculating about a loss of output incredibly low as for your 96 for Bismarck).

The 1.7 should anyway be compared to 1,9 for PoW (however, at distances between 26.000 and 15.000 yards). :kaput:

Please compare the data for the first 10 minutes (8:48-8:58) of battle (comparable distances) if you want to try to be credible.

KGV fired more slowly than PoW and had the same main problems.


Re. Leach decision this is a matter of opinions and we will never be in agreement.



Bye, Alberto
I know how many rnds were missed due to individual gun failures and from that it is easy to work out the output prior to 0920 and this is supported by the GAR:
" The 14in mounting had been working very smoothly but after 0920 commenced to have it's troubles..." (KGV GAR p.145 paragraph 9)

At 0853 the radar measured range from KGV to Bismarck was 20,500 yds. (KGV GAR p.144 Phase 1)

" from 0853 to 0913... the rate of fire over this period was 1.7 salvos per minute." (KGV GAR p.144 Phase 2)

EFGS/minute is the salvo rate x the output % and gives the actual number of rnds fired/minute.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

...No....You speculate that a GAR must list all single misfires, but PoW GAR (much more complete) demonstrates that this is not the case (McMullen never listed the problems in B turret, while Barben told us what happened there). Why should KGV GAR be more detailed ? :negative:

You compare apples with pears because you take a different interval and NOT the first 18 salvos (or 10 minutes max starting from 8:48) and NOT the same distance of fire. If I take from 6:00 to 6:01 PoW achieved a RoF of 3 salvos per minute.... :lol:

Your KGV effective figures are just speculations as you cannot have ANY clue how many shots were actually ordered. :negative:


You are, as usual, proposing your speculations/assumptions as FACTS. You yourself recognized (when discussing the KGV firing) that the KGV GAR is not sufficient to draw a reliable salvo chart for the ship.
Fortunately for us, McMullen was much MORE precise and built the "annoying" table to show the actual PoW gunnery performance while the KGV GAR is totally useless in this regard.



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Detailed discussions about KG V fire rates based on real records belong on the appropriate thread. Fanciful speculations about what might have happened had two KG Vs encountered a Bismarck belong in the hypothetical thread.


This thread doesn't belong here.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
as I said in the beginning of this discussion, here I do agree with Mr.Wadinga.
"Detailed discussions about KG V fire rates based on real records belong on the appropriate thread. Fanciful speculations about what might have happened had two KG Vs encountered a Bismarck belong in the hypothetical thread".

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
My apologies, you are quite right in posting
"Detailed discussions about KG V fire rates based on real records belong on the appropriate thread. Fanciful speculations about what might have happened had two KG Vs encountered a Bismarck belong in the hypothetical thread".
I'm afraid this discussion is beginning to take over from another thread re a Court Martial which I had hoped was finished and at the same time taking in another thread as to the firing rates of Bismarck, KGV and PoW.
If I moved the PoW+KGV v Bismarck to the hypothetical part are we going to get the same arguments all over again?
After all, all I wanted to know was whether PoW and KGV would have been enough to 'take care' of Bismarck and PE and sink them, shall I move it or do we consider the question as being dealt with?
Post Reply